list_question_sets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful behavioral context for a mutation-free tool. However, it says nothing about permissions required, pagination, or result ordering, and the field list (title, description, active, enabled) duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the read-only flag immediately after. The final sentence listing fields is slightly wasteful given an output schema exists, but it is brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, and safety profile. It stops short of explaining pagination or admin-only access constraints, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description does not confuse the matter by inventing inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (demographic survey question sets), with scope 'all' that implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_question_set. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like list_questions_for_question_set, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Admin/compliance tool for managing demographic data collection' gives implied context for when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of the related get_question_set or list_questions_for_question_set alternatives, and no prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.